Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History

Book

Open Original Text

nity taught
in our schools, to ignore is impossible. Much of Mr Holyoake's speech
had no bearing upon the subject under discussion, but was simply an
attack upon persons and the more transitory aspects of the Atheistic
position. To this Mr Bradlaugh replied, and of course his reply was as
irrelevant as the attack, but putting this aside, he asked in his last
speech: "Has Mr Holyoake shown that Secular Criticism does not involve
Scepticism? Not at all. What secular principles has he advanced which
are inconsistent with the position I take? None." I think with this
everyone who carefully reads the debate will agree. Mr Holyoake in his
final speech, which also wound up the debate, indulged in considerable
sarcasm at his opponent's expense, and made his memorable and
oft-quoted sneer at the Hall of Science; speaking of it as "this kind
of place in which we now meet, opposite a lunatic asylum, where people,
so the enemy says, naturally expect to find us." Before sitting down,
Mr Holyoake quoted statements he had made elsewhere as to Secularism,
from one of which I will take a few lines, in order to put his position
fairly in his own words:--

"Secularism," he said, "is not an argument against Christianity, it
is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of
Christianity, it advances others. Secularism does not say there is
no light and guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light
and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist
independently, act independently, and act for ever. Secular knowledge
is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life,
which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of
this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this
life."

Mr Austin Holyoake, who, as I have said, occupied the chair on both
evenings, was specially invited by his brother to express his opinion.
This he objected to do at the debate, but he afterwards wrote a short
criticism, in the course of which he asked the pertinent question: "How
can any one _not_ an Atheist be a Secularist?" and the answer to this
would, I think, be hard to find.

On the 22nd and 23rd of June Mr Bradlaugh met Alexander Robertson,
Esq., of Dundonnochie, to discuss with him the Existence of Deity.
The meetings were held in the New Waverley Hall, Edinburgh, and
there was a large attendance on each evening. Mr Robertson, however,
proved utterly incompetent; and the affair, regarded as a debate, was
a complete fiasco.[154] On the second evening, indeed, a number of
Christians left the room as a protest against Mr Robertson's method
of advocacy. All that I need note here is that Mr Bradlaugh once more
stated his position as an Atheist. I repeat it, as he himself put it
at different times in his life, because even to this day his views are
often misapprehended.

[Footnote 154: The _Fife News_ spoke of it as a meeting between "the
Atheist and the ignoramus," and the _Christian News_ said: "The second
night's debate was no debate. So completely did the Theist fail,
in more senses than one, that he need never appear in the city of
Edinburgh again as a defender of religion."]

In his opening speech Mr Robertson had conjured up several absurd
theories of Atheism (amongst which the inevitable "chance"--made world
figured), and had triumphantly disposed of them. Mr Bradlaugh in his
reply said:--

 "I am an Atheist, but I do not say there is no God; and until you
 tell me what you mean by God I am not mad enough to say anything of
 the kind. So long as the word 'God' represents nothing to me, so
 long as it is a word that is not the correlative and expression of
 something clear and distinct, I am not going to tilt against what
 may be nothing-nowhere. Why should I? If you tell me that by God you
 mean 'something' which created the universe, which before the act
 of creation was not; 'something' which has the power of destroying
 that universe; 'something' which rules and governs it, and which
 nevertheless is entirely distinct and different in substance from the
 universe--then I am prepared to deny that any such existence can be."

On the next evening he referred to this, and enlarged upon it thus:--

 "I said last night that the Atheist does not say there is no God,
 so long as the word simply represents an indefinite quantity or
 quality--of you don't know what, you don't know where; but I object
 to the God of Christianity, and absolutely deny it. In all ages men
 have fashioned their Gods according to their want of knowledge--the
 more ignorant the people, the more numerous their deities, because
 the Gods represented their personifications of force. Men beheld
 phenomena beyond, and independent of, human ability, and they ascribed
 these phenomena to deities, the 'God' in each case representing their
 ignorance."

The first debate with the Rev. A.J. Harrison was held for two
nights in September, at the Newcastle Town Hall; and 3000 persons,
at least, were present on each night. For each speaker there was a
partisan chairman, and over these an impartial umpire--an arrangement
particularly disliked by Mr Bradlaugh, who thought one chairman
quite sufficient, and who was always willing that that one should be
unconnected with the Freethought party. The umpire--that is to say,
the real chairman--was on this occasion Lieut.-Col. Perkins, and he
won golden opinions for his tact, unfailing good humour, and courtesy,
qualities which the uproarious spirit of the audience rendered very
necessary. Mr Harrison has a certain reputation, so that I can hardly
pass this first debate with my father without some notice, as I might
otherwise have been tempted to do; for, in truth, I do not think there
is very much to be learned from it. Mr Harrison worded the subjects
to be discussed, and Mr Bradlaugh accepted every condition which was
proposed. The propositions which the reverend gentleman chose to affirm
were: (1.) That Secularism, distinctively considered, is not a system
of truth, and therefore cannot justify its existence to the reason;
and (2.) That Secularism, distinctively considered, is not a system of
morality, and is therefore unworthy of trust as a guide. Mr Harrison
opened the debate by examining the proposition he himself had worded,
declaring at the outset that Secularism could not be a system of truth,
"_first_, because it has no truth to offer; and _second_, because it
is not a system at all." Mr Bradlaugh, in reply, thought it was hardly
necessary to discuss "what is needed to constitute a system, or whether
Secularism is a system or not, because," he said, "I think I have
made it clear enough all my life through that the great merit of the
thought of which I am permitted to be the advocate is that it does not
pretend that any one man, or any dozen of men, have a right to lay down
a number of propositions, and say, 'These make a system which shall
bind the world.'" Mr Harrison contended that there were three kinds of
A

Previous Next